This is too incomplete to reach any conclusions. The board made claims about a specific class of activity. They may or may not have been more specific in their conversations with Sam and Greg. Either way the credibility accusation needs more than just a timeline to refute it.
Maybe it was a coup as per some reporting; maybe it wasn’t. I’m reluctant to make a decision here based on who got to the reporters first. There is some asymmetry in media savvy between Sam and the board.
I’m with you on this. OpenAI’s board publicly stated that Sam Altman had lied to them, and that they no longer have confidence in his ability to continue leading the company. I find it really hard to believe they just made that up. They could have just said that they lost confidence in Sam’s leadership. But they also said he had lied to them. And that’s a big deal.
Yes. It’s also true that the board made decisions I would not expect from a competent board, like not giving any investors a heads up about this.
One thing we’ll know by tomorrow morning: was Swisher right when she said there’d be more top level resignations? That will tell us a certain amount about her credibility/sources.
(Also, obviously, my opinion about any of this is worth what you pay for it.)
It's harder to tell now, but from a timeline of events, that supposed OpenAI insider on Reddit had key details of the 'palace coup' that reputable journalists like Kara Swisher (and now a primary source of Greg Brockman) have largely confirmed.
yeah, often times that is the case. Because reddit is antonymous and free, people can and do make all kinds of claims, some of which come true. If you have 500 people making up different claims, it is likely that one of them will come true, even if that person was guessing/lying.
Im not saying that real leaks dont happen, but that pre-running the news is really weak evidence the on reddit, unless the claims are incredibly specific.
I dont think there was anything they said on reddit that was very specific, and several posters in the HN thread speculating the same thing, just without claiming to be "in the room".
It is kind of like publishing multiple weather predictions, and then claiming credit for the one that is correct.
No that's horseshit since it does not constitute a valid legal reason for his removal nor it's inline with their blog post. They would get sued out of their a* if they acted based on this.
You’re taking the word of the fired verbatim on Twitter? There are multiple sides to every story. For legal reasons, the board may never give exact details.
Maybe it was a coup as per some reporting; maybe it wasn’t. I’m reluctant to make a decision here based on who got to the reporters first. There is some asymmetry in media savvy between Sam and the board.